Islam in Europe: perception and reality

[Mudhammam]

First and foremost my argument is the stupidity to believe that you can bomb any given opponent into submission.

Um, actually you can. It's hilarious and appallingly naive to suggest that we should simply sit down and try to reason with a group like ISIS.

It only strenghtens the resolve of the ones being bombed, if there are civilian casualties.

I'm still waiting on numbers of those whom you believe join terrorist organizations as a result of their loved ones being unintentionally killed. It seems to me that most are intent to join ISIS on the basis of so-called infidels invading Muslim lands or attacking Muslim groups, regardless if they have personally experienced loss as a result of collateral damage. And even this is a rather small percentage when considering the rest of the population who merely want to have opportunities and live a peaceful and happy life, which, unfortunately, is a goal that the groups you would prefer we leave in power make it difficult to fulfill.

The one and only occasion where bombs may have had some influence is Japan. But Japan already was on the ground and ready to negotiate if some terms would have been accepted. Foremost not touching the emperor, which they got in any case.

Um.. so we should have just sat down and negotiated with the Nazis too? Maybe they would have been willing to settle on peaceful terms, right?

Secondly, I freely admit that I would do my utmost to make the attacker pay, if one of my family fell victim to a drone strike. And that's not only me, that's also what some studies say on the effectiveness of these strikes. They create new enemies, which is only human. There's also precedent from WWII when allied crews have been lynched by the population, if they were unlucky enough to fall into their hands before getting to a POW camp.

Sure, there is the risk that we make some new enemies when a drone annihilates an unintended target... But you act like the people who are victims of drone strikes are not already victims of extremist groups in power in those regions, which, if I was (say) a secularist living in Mosul, would probably consider who was the intended target when reflecting on the tragedy of a family member getting caught in the crossfire. And it would seem you have no idea about the number of those whom lose family members as a result of collateral damage, and don't join one of the jihadist insurgencies who terrorize everyone not willing to submit to their fascist governance. That might help your case. Or it might not.

Third, which is the unpopular option, if you want to defeat any given enemy, you have to have boots on the ground, and you have to know who you're dealing with. Most of all, have a plan for the aftermath, since large parts of the region's population won't greet you with open arms, but treat you as an occupying force. As has been shown most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan with the blue eyed beacon of democracy approach.

And what percentage of those who were liberated from the rule of the Taliban or the Ba'athists wished to continue living under those brutal rulers? Of course, we (the Bush and Obama administrations) botched up the situation in Iraq badly, but that's a separate argument from whether or not the use of violence was and is sometimes necessary, and in particular whether or not we could have justly liberated two nations from the regimes that held so many innocents hostage and actually built up flourishing, democratic societies in their stead. If you claim that such a goal was immoral, make the argument that it's better to keep murderous lunatics like Saddam or the Taliban in power. If you believe that the goal was noble but the execution was poor, then we have no disagreement. If you think that the mere fact of our use of violence makes us no better than those whom we fought and must continually fight, you are delusional.

The cynical but only logical approach in regions like Syria, would have been to support Assad. If you don't know who's going to replace him - best recent example Lybia - you have to deal with the devil you know. And that's the only way to end the widespread bloodbath, since there are dozens of opposing groups fighting for unknown goals and being at each others throats.

Fine. But 1) acknowledge how truly depressing your statement is, and 2) stop pretending that an attempt to remove a person like Assad, even if it involves collateral damage, is equal to what Assad does simply to maintain his brutish control.

Same goes for every region the West mingled within the last one and a half decades. Actively working towards removing the secular powers of Iraq and Lybia took the lid off the boiling kettle. Which brings me back to point three. If you go in, you better know all about inner conflicts, ethnicities and believes, and what you, as the invading power, plan to do after the fighting is over.

Agreed. We made mistakes, and it is costing us now. That, of course, doesn't make us as bad as our enemies... which should be clear to any thinking person (and no, philosophy isn't necessary here, but apparently it could help).